Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Waiting For a Constitutional Ban on Abortion Really Pro-Life?
The Southern Ledger ^ | November 18th, 2007 | Steve Gill,

Posted on 11/18/2007 5:27:53 PM PST by Josh Painter

When the nation’s largest right to life organization endorsed Fred Thompson last week it sparked some criticism of his pro-life record by his disappointed opponents for the Republican nomination. Thompson produced a 100% pro-life voting record during his eight years in the U.S. Senate, yet some in the pro-life community were dismayed by the National Right to Life endorsement decision and see him as “squishy” on the issue. He believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned, but he has also expressed doubts about whether a Constitutional ban on abortion is practical or politically feasible.

Consistent with his Federalist principles, Thompson prefers to allow the states to apply restrictions on abortion should Roe v. Wade get overturned. It is that viewpoint that has evoked outrage from those who claim Thompson’s approach is actually a pro-abortion position.

-snip-

Given the opportunity, there are perhaps thirty states that would impose restrictions on abortion that could dramatically reduce the numbers of unborn babies killed each year... But the practice would come to an end, or face reasonable restrictions, in many places.

The bottom line is that the Thompson approach would actually save lives while the “we won’t save anybody until we can save everybody” plan will result in hundreds of thousands of abortions each year that COULD be prevented. So, which approach is really MORE pro-life? I suspect that the unborn babies in Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, and numerous other states where voters would support restrictions on abortion would support Thompson and his Federalist approach…if they could. The fact that the nation’s largest pro-life organization sees the practical, and life saving, value of an incremental approach to abortion policy should be applauded rather than utilized as a political wedge to divide pro-life voters.

(Excerpt) Read more at southernledger.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fredthompson; gop; nomination; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: Jim Noble
Why do you think that is?

Because they lack vision.

"Without a vision, My people perish." - Proverbs 29:18

21 posted on 11/18/2007 7:48:01 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Neither does John Kerry:

Good for him.

22 posted on 11/18/2007 7:49:59 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

I’ve posted this in a couple of places and it doesn’t seem to get much more than a yawn, even though it’s kinda-sorta an incremental approach.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908148/posts?page=125#125

I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed.
***I do too. That fetus deserves protection extended by the state.

I do wonder if it is biblical to extend “full” protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, he’s expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.

Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 (or even 4) tiered system of protection.

Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.

Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.

Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.

With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.

125 posted on 10/08/2007 1:43:20 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]


23 posted on 11/18/2007 7:52:23 PM PST by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Because they lack vision.

No, it's because they lack the votes of the people to sustain their alleged position contained in the party platform.

24 posted on 11/18/2007 7:53:51 PM PST by Jim Noble (Trails of trouble, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Nah. The problem is that most of them are like many of the people on this site. They like to call themselves pro-life, but aren’t willing to contend for the right to life if it costs them anything personally. And God forbid that the personhood of the unborn, and what that means, should inform their choice of candidates for public office.


25 posted on 11/18/2007 8:03:33 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

“Is Waiting For a Constitutional Ban on Abortion Really Pro-Life?”

Pro life? Yes.

Practical? No.


26 posted on 11/18/2007 8:06:53 PM PST by Grunthor (Liberals need to be reminded that The Holy Bible is more than just God’s opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jellybean; Politicalmom; girlangler; KoRn; Shortstop7; Lunatic Fringe; Darnright; babygene; ...
PING!!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference

WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.

27 posted on 11/18/2007 8:21:38 PM PST by Politicalmom (Of the potential GOP front runners, FT has one of the better records on immigration.- NumbersUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

So, you don’t think FRed’s proposal will work?


28 posted on 11/18/2007 8:26:15 PM PST by papasmurf (sudo apt - get install FRed Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I do actually disagree that there is a ‘right’ to privacy. Where do we extend this right? Where do we stop it? If you’re dealing drugs, you’re committing a crime. But if you’re doing it in your bedroom, it’s not? Well, if we’re going to be consistent in how we apply these laws, that would be the case. Your bedroom (or your home) would be your private realm and you’d have a ‘right’ to privacy there.

All of it opens a huge can of worms.

There were other decisions leading up to Roe that helped build the case for a ‘right to privacy’. The Griswold vs Connecticut decision is where the ‘right to privacy’ first came into play involving birth control. That was where the ‘penumbra’ argument first reared it’s ugly head. Again, if you apply this ‘right’ to other things, you come up with things that just plain don’t make sense.

I stand with Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia. There is no right to privacy ANYWHERE in the Constitution.


29 posted on 11/18/2007 8:37:20 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (John Cox 2008: Because Duncan Hunter just isn't obscure enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter

There is nothing in the constitution to make it a federal issue.

While abortion is wrong and abhorrent the critical error of Roe v Wade was the idea that it was a federal issue.

If we feel it should be a federal issue there are ways to address it such as amending the constitution etc.


30 posted on 11/18/2007 8:42:18 PM PST by festus (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

As an aside:

Judicial conservatism is about recognizing a can of worms and deciding not to open it.

This brings us to the question of how to close a can of worms once it’s already been opened. There, we begin the long and arduous task of putting each worm back in the can, one at a time, and then closing the can for good. That is how we must approach this issue.


31 posted on 11/18/2007 8:50:15 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (John Cox 2008: Because Duncan Hunter just isn't obscure enough for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
Are there any MittWits left to make this into a big argument? If there are, they’ve been awful quiet today.

They are tending to their wounds and in one case, a nervous breakdown. It hasn't been a good week for the Rominoids, and the last 36 hours was a waterloo of sorts. But I think a bit of a break and a few spliffs and they will be back in the battle all the better for the rest.

32 posted on 11/18/2007 8:53:05 PM PST by HerrBlucher (He's the coolest thing around, gonna shut HRC down, gonna turn it on, wind it up, blow em out, FDT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MOgirl

Wars are won by incremental battle victories...we need to remember that in this “war” as well. FRed’s approach is a good battle plan.


33 posted on 11/18/2007 9:07:29 PM PST by FlashBack (www.proudpatriots.org/www.woundedwarriorproject.org/www.moveamericaforward.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Josh Painter
Mr. Gill is presenting us with a false choice by trying to frame the issue this way. We can pursue overturning Roe versus Wade to allow individual states to ban abortion while at the same time pursuing a Constitutional Amendment to say that the unborn child is a person. Abraham Lincoln wasn't an extremist who was willing to allow slavery to exist everywhere because he couldn't extinguish it everywhere, but he also understood that the country could not survive as a "divided house" where every state had a different definition of who was a person with full rights. The wording of an amendment will be difficult, but only a Constitutional Amendment can establish a single definition for the entire country. Once that single definition of a person is established, then individual states should be allowed to decide how they'll deal with protecting these unborn citizens.

Another problem with Mr. Thompson's approach is that overturning Roe versus Wade only by a Supreme Court decision leaves open the possibility that the next president will appoint a different judge who will rule to bring back abortion as a right. Until we have an amendment defining the unborn child as a person, abortion could go back and forth with each change of administration. We aren't ready to pass an amendment at this time, but the idea that an amendment is a bad idea is wrong.

Bill

34 posted on 11/18/2007 9:10:06 PM PST by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlashBack
Hello,

Exactly. We must start small, just like they did. The idea that we can win the last battle, the biggest battle, FIRST, is simply not going to happen.

MOgirl

35 posted on 11/18/2007 9:31:30 PM PST by MOgirl (Prayers for my Mom. (Your prayers must be working, she is doing much better!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MOgirl
Couldn’t have said it better myself
36 posted on 11/18/2007 9:33:13 PM PST by StoneWall Brigade (Duncan Hunter 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FlashBack

The incrementalist arguments have their roots in Hegel’s philosophy - which led to Marx, Engels and Lenin.

It works great for evil, but very poorly for good.

You can add poison to a cup of wine incrementally, and make it a poison cup.

But, if you add wine to a cup of poison, you will not end up with a cup of wine. It will still be a poison cup.


37 posted on 11/18/2007 9:47:49 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TChad

The efforts of pro-life organizations (speaking as a decades long member of two major ones and supporter of local pro-life crisis pregnancy centers) to change minds gets very little notice in the general circulation press. The notice they do receive is generally negative in tone (they are “moralistic,” promote abstinence, et cetera, et cetera).
But as to a broader point, the matter of constitutionally banning abortion, I doubt very much that many pro-life activists would support that because occasionally, very rarely but occasionally, abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman. For starters, it would be nice to see Roe overturned, and a declarative finding by the Supremes that there is no “right to abort” in the U. S. Constitution.


38 posted on 11/18/2007 9:50:07 PM PST by Elsiejay (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
So (especially given his 100% voting record) it seems to me that calling Thompson's position pro-abortion is not just a stretch, it's an outright lie.

Exactly!

39 posted on 11/18/2007 10:19:13 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

As I understand it, Fred wants to overturns Roe and send the issue back to the states. Where it belongs. I believe that has a better chance to save more lives sooner than a Constitutional Amendment would.


40 posted on 11/18/2007 10:55:57 PM PST by Grunthor (Glenn Beck is performing Paul Revere’s function the hard way – without a horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson